Breakell v. Commissioner
United States Tax Court
Ps had a negative adjusted gross income and paid no regular income tax. Included in the computation of adjusted gross income were preference item deductions, represented by a dividend exclusion and the capital gain deduction under sec. 1202, I.R.C.
Read the full summary
Ps had a negative adjusted gross income and paid no regular income tax. Included in the computation of adjusted gross income were preference item deductions, represented by a dividend exclusion and the capital gain deduction under sec. 1202, I.R.C. Ps computed their alternative minimum tax by utilizing the negative adjusted gross income and also by reducing the amount of their preference items by the amount of those items from which they derived no tax benefit in respect of their regular income tax. Held, the tax benefit adjustment under sec. 55(h), I.R.C., does not permit Ps to obtain a…
1Opinion of the Court
WALTER J. BREAKELL, III and DOROTHY BREAKELL, Petitioners v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
Breakell v. Commissioner
Docket No. 12292-90
United States Tax Court
97 T.C. 282; 1991 U.S. Tax Ct. LEXIS 77; 97 T.C. No. 18;
September 5, 1991, Filed
Decision will be entered under Rule 155.
Ps had a negative adjusted gross income and paid no regular income tax. Included in the computation of adjusted gross income were preference item deductions, represented by a dividend exclusion and the capital gain deduction under sec. 1202, I.R.C. Ps computed their alternative minimum tax by utilizing the…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Commissioner v. ConnellySupreme Court of the United States · 1949
- First Chicago Corporation v. Commissioner of Internal RevenueCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1988
- Occidental Petroleum Corp. v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1984
- First Chicago Corp. v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1987
- Breakell v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1991
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.